Rare designators in USN

[Max the Mad Russian]

I'm shocked, really. Well, our biggest problem is alcohol-related misbehavior of the sailors which occasionally could lead to a crime, but mostly as a sequence of the litre of the vodka inside. Military court, prison, so on. They know it but when it comes to "I'm scared, I don't know what to do, I won't gonna take it anymore" the usual way is to ask a shipmate who is just half-year senior conscript what to do. "Let's go in black gang guts (mach spaces) and find some drink there, that's the way everybody survives here". Well, suicides are not unheard of, but it's rare, really rare in the Navy here. So that's why I have no good example of military psychologists' value. Thank each of you very much gents, it's something new in comparison.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Thank each of you very much gents, it's something new in comparison.

Glad to hear, sir! It's always good to aggregate unclass information drawn from decades of hard-earned DoD experience in ways that might accelerate the learning curve and decrease the sizeable cost imposition inherent in maturing new naval aviation capabilities, CV organizational attributes, and flight ops for the Kuznetsov. If seemingly trivial nuances not found in print (e.g. about organizational structure/ roles/ responsibilities/ culture) can help Kuzentsov replicate the "secret sauce" a day faster and a ruble cheaper, and maybe one day indirectly avert another MiG-29K/Su-33 mishap, well then that's wonderful!

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

If seemingly trivial nuances not found in print (e.g. about organizational structure/ roles/ responsibilities/ culture) can help Kuzentsov replicate the "secret sauce" a day faster and a ruble cheaper, and maybe one day indirectly avert another MiG-29K/Su-33 mishap, well then that's wonderful!

I'm afraid it's impossible in the long term - Kuznetsov is not a carrier, she is the guided missile cruiser both administratively and operatively. And for me it really doesn't matter how her airwing will be used in combat, as the ethos and approaches to that combat and training will always be of Air Force origin, not naval one. Until we step over that watershed between two different philosophies (carrier is a essentially a cruiser and her air wing is tailored Air Force air regiment) we won't help ourselves to make the things smoother. Sad but true.

Another funny USN designators are SeaBees. Staff Corps people with ground combat training. Is it so compulsory to have those people within the Navy? Do USMC (or Army) feels worse within that kind of supporting ground battlefield activity?

 

[PenguinGal]

Another funny USN designators are SeaBees. Staff Corps people with ground combat training. Is it so compulsory to have those people within the Navy? Do USMC (or Army) feels worse within that kind of supporting ground battlefield activity?

1. Seabees is the term associated with those in the construction battalions of different flavors, not an actual designator.
2.Not all officers in the Seabees are Staff Corps (PHIBCBs have SWOs too). The Staff Corps officers are CEC officers but not all CEC officers are Seabees as some never go to a battalion. Those that don't usually don't have great promotability, but it happens.
3. Do you like runways? Do you like piers to park your ships? Do you like having fuel/water available when you land? Do the Marines like having FOBs, roads, etc etc etc built by their parent command, the Navy? If the answer to all of this is Yes, then yes the Seabees are a necessary force.

Seabees are not an offensive fighting force. Seabees are strictly defensive in nature. As such, the USMC and USA love the Seabees because we bring the good stuff to the awful places. Hot showers, galleys, camps, FOBs, towers, roads, airfields, you name it, we can build it.

I'd love to tell you more about how the Seabees and the CEC are a great and integral part of the Navy but I need to go to work for the moment. Feel free to PM me. I am a Seabee Combat Warfare officer who absolutely believes in our mission.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Hot showers, galleys, camps, FOBs, towers, roads, airfields, you name it, we can build it.

Right, there is nothing personal and yet these are my apologies here if my posting was viewed slightly arrogant or so. Sorry, I honestly haven't such intentions. I just out of experience - while the Russian Navy of course has its basing system and subsystems that allows to have all "roads, piers, airfields and so on", all this is of Army origin who essentially leases to the Navy its officers, men and equipment to take care of the latter. Aside, Russian Navy never and our Marines as a Navy part very seldom deploy the people in regions with no naval installations and interest: for example there wasn't a single Navy or Marine officer in Afghan for entire war 1979-1988, only Army, Air Force and Border Guards (yet with small brownwater riverine navy of their own) were there. Navy and Marine officers in Syria now are just at Tartus naval base installations, while the Khmeimim airbase is maintained and protected by Army engineering corps and AF guards. The walls between the services are tall and always have been here. That is why I do really know that Russian Army engineers are usually able to cope out with a half+ jobs that USN Seabees routinely do. Of course my answers would be "yes" each time when I'm either recalling my surface navy experience or pretending to feel like USN airwarrior or grunt Marine. And I have no doubts that Seabees are highly valuable asset - you are. I'm just asking is it so important for Seabees to be the part of the Navy or for Navy to possess, own and run Seabees? Could it be wiser to establish an independent "civil engineering" corps supporting other military services instead of the having separate organic corps in each of those services? Ok, more detailed in PM soon.


Regards, Max

 

[PenguinGal]

Detailed response in PM.

As for is it important for the navy to run the Seabees? Yes, it is. Other service engineering units (RED HORSE, PRIME BEEF, etc) have very different focuses than the Seabees. I guess in theory you could possibly lump us all together, but then you wind up with a generic engineering force that is a jack of all trades, master of none. By having the individual expertise in each branch, the training, skill sets, and missions are able to be tailored to that branch and their roles/responsibilities. For example, Seabees can do runway repair and construction. We do that because we have naval aviators who like to have places to land their planes and ships aren't always an option. The AF also has runway construction capabilities, but their requirements are geared more towards AF runway use/requirements.

 

[AllAmerican75]

SWO nukes and Sub nukes have completely different paths.

SWO's no longer go to a CVN as a first tour, only after qualifying SWO on another ship, and before they changed the rules the only SWO's I saw go to a CVN for a first tours were SWO-N

Word on the street is that SWO 2nd DIVO billets on CVNs are going away as well due to them not being career-enhancing for SWOs (too many people making it hard to break out and get the DH recommendations needed to progress). From what I was told, only SWO-N, SWO(IP), SWO(IW), SWO(METOC), and SWO(INTEL) bubbas as getting detailed to carriers to start work early on their RL quals.

 

[azguy]

Word on the street is that SWO 2nd DIVO billets on CVNs are going away as well due to them not being career-enhancing for SWOs (too many people making it hard to break out and get the DH recommendations needed to progress).

Hadn't heard this, but that's good news. This comes in line with the decision to make MSRON/RIVRON shore duty-only gigs, and the policy against doing more than one staff/-RON tour. There's a lot of interest in re-focusing our officer's currency and competency in sailing and fighting gray warships, rather than playing GI Joe or doing scheduling for a squadron. The CVN (ship's company) is no place for a SWO, reactor dept being the single and obvious exception.

 

[Python]

The CVN (ship's company) is no place for a SWO, reactor dept being the single and obvious exception.

Just curious, why is this?

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Word on the street is that SWO 2nd DIVO billets on CVNs are going away as well due to them not being career-enhancing for SWOs (too many people making it hard to break out and get the DH recommendations needed to progress). From what I was told, only SWO-N, SWO(IP), SWO(IW), SWO(METOC), and SWO(INTEL) bubbas as getting detailed to carriers to start work early on their RL quals.

It really doesn't surprise me, it seemed that many of the SWO's that went to CVN's were on their way out.

We have had SWO option go big decks from our NRD, we also had an IP not SWO option that went to a big deck as well (command ship)

SWO-Intel was cancelled last I heard (might still be on the books)

 

[DanMa1156]

Glad to hear, sir! It's always good to aggregate unclass information drawn from decades of hard-earned DoD experience in ways that might accelerate the learning curve and decrease the sizeable cost imposition inherent in maturing new naval aviation capabilities, CV organizational attributes, and flight ops for the Kuznetsov. If seemingly trivial nuances not found in print (e.g. about organizational structure/ roles/ responsibilities/ culture) can help Kuzentsov replicate the "secret sauce" a day faster and a ruble cheaper, and maybe one day indirectly avert another MiG-29K/Su-33 mishap, well then that's wonderful!

 

[azguy]

Just curious, why is this?

Operating a CVN is black magic. It's a fantastically complex business that aviators and the 'mustang' community have perfected over decades; and you guys are able to execute that voodoo far better than any other navy on the planet.

That said, a SWO JO should be focused on learning, and hopefully beginning to master, the SWO warfighting core competencies, none of which are done by CVN ship's company.*

*With very, very, very few exceptions...

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

The CVN (ship's company) is no place for a SWO, reactor dept being the single and obvious exception.

Fair enough. Carrier Brits thought opposite - and where those carrier Brits are now? And by the way - people often underline the importance of a several billets in an average carrier ship's company which are typically occupied by mustangs (as far as I understand, LDOs and CWOs). Why so?

 

[Uncle Fester]

...And by the way - people often underline the importance of a several appointments on an average carrier which are typically occupied by mustangs (as far as I understand, LDOs and CWOs). Why so?

There are a lot of officer billets which need long years of experience to be done well/safely or require a high degree of technical knowdge that your average O-3-over-six isn't going to possess.

 

[azguy]

Fair enough. Carrier Brits thought opposite - and where those carrier Brits are now? And by the way - people often underline the importance of a several billets in an average carrier ship's company which are typically occupied by mustangs (as far as I understand, LDOs and CWOs). Why so?

Yeah, it's not that I'm apathetic to what's going on over there. I would love the chance to hang out in the "AR" and "AP" cells and see how/why they do their thing, just as I think it would be good to get some VAW/VFA guys over to see the "AW" perspective. But the CVN isn't my pooka, just as the AEGIS CIC isn't "theirs."